User talk:Fadix/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi! Welcome to wikipedia. In regarding your edits to the Armenian genocide article, Please read the following articles: Wikipedia is not an online forum. Armenian genocide is a dispute that is yet to be resolved. Your edits are POV (point of view) oriented. No one is or can acknowlege or deny the Armenian Genocide on wikipedia. Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow thse:

Thank you for your time! --Cool Cat My Talk 14:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I DID READ EVERYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA, AND ITS NOTE ON WHAT IS NEUTRAL, NONE OF WHAT I WROTE ARE POV, EVERY POINTS I BROUGHT WERE NOT MY OPINION BUT WHAT IS SAID BY THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THE ACCADEMIA, THE LIST OF CONCENTRATION CAMPS IS RECOGNISED AND WELL ESTABLISHED... THE SPECIAL ORGANIZATION AS WELL, I WONDER HOW THOSE CAN BE POV. SHOW ME WHICH POV, SHOW ME JUST ONE POV I HAVE USED, AND I WILL REFER TO YOU TO DOZENS OF WORKS SHOWING THAT THE CLAIMS ARE NOTE MINE.

Coolcat, etc[edit]

I won't take sides between you two. I want to see signs that you have both read, understood and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the following ones:

So far despite the protestations from both sides I'm not seeing a lot of this from either of you. No calling one another childish, no calling one another whackos. I'll be watching both of you and I don't want to be disappointed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am working on NPOVing the article. As far as I remeber I did not refer him as "childish" I revered to revert wars beeing childish and how much I want to evade one. I am urging my remote party, to read my edits carefully and stop acusing me with things. That article is NOT neutral. If you cannot deal with oposing views you dont belong to wikipedia. You are not right neither I am, this is a contriverisal topic. I dont care of your support. This article is based on a dispute, the article should not be for neither sies view. I amde a few edits, tell me what you think. BTW, please do NOT revert, overwrite, scream, whinine, swear, insult me/my edits without discussing. Instead please discuss. I expect to see a civilised discussion there is no reason for threats. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your general attitude towards wikipedia is not promissing judjing from your very own talk page. This is neither a warzone nor a forum you can "fight" on, while you are free to put whatever you like but wikipedia is not your own which you can do whatever you like... I am only being tolerant to your general attitude due to the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. You will work with me and other mods not against us. We may disagree but you have to reason. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My attitude is very understandable given that you have reverted back what I have justified with 160 pages of answers. You have not justified any of your edits. Wikiepdia neutral point of view concerns presenting opposing views, but giving more places to the one recognized by most. Another thing that the Neutral point of view doesn't include, is to give false informations about a claim. If a claim is A, you can not claim that that claim is B. I am not telling here that the claim should not be included, what I am saying is that it should be presented as it is claimed and not your POV. Both Turks and Armenians knows that I have done extensive research about this issue, I have written reviews about works etc. I am ready to include the opposing point of view, but you edit my article by claim that there are POV, but you introduce POV yourself. Whuile I just justified in the talk page why I will be editing back some of the informations, it is expected that you will be reverting them without even talking about it in the talk page. That's disgusting given that I spent hours and hours and 160 pages to justify the entirety. I know that as a Turk you have your own opinions, but my position doesn't end up with simply opinions, for over 5 years I have read about that issue and have reviewed the major works published about it, and I won't accept that someone that because of his opinion moderate me not because I am not respect Wikipedia rules, but rather because he can't accept something. When I say most “scholars” there is no reason for you to delete that info and claim that there is two opposing view, without indicating that one of those two views is what is supported by most neutral scholars. And again, I repeat, I could very well add in the Holocaust entry at top like you do with the Armenian genocide. Indicating that Jewish and Muslem views are presented there... because as I stated, the majority of the Muslim doubt the Holocaust did happen. Even thought the Ottoman Empire is an Islamic Empire, the Armenian genocide is more recognized than the Shoah among the Muslim. There are many Arab historians that have treated about the subject and just recently a work documenting them has been published. Those are not POV, thos are relevant informations and you can not only edit them. Fadix 15:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well if the majority of the muslims dispute it you cannot come out of nowhere claimin its a fact. It is not my position to dispute it or acknowlege it. I am not Turkish. I happen to live in Turkey due to the nature of my assignment. What you blieve are facts are not necesarily facts. You are acusing a nation of a massacre. That is neither widely accepted nor disputed as far as wikipedia is concerened. You claim to follow a cause to proove Amenian Genocide, while I am trying to make it neutral. I discussed my points long before you got here. You cannot bluntly come here out of nowhere and claim your beliefs as facts. It does not matter how many hundereds of pages of stuff you throw at me it is a POINT OF VIEW. I believe its reasonable to say. A scholar with a point of view is not neutral. The wikipedia policy if you had had read the NPOV article goes like this: "Fairness and sympathetic tone
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, on the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail." Read the article then start doing edits. Dont claim you read it until you actualy have read it. You cannot claim that the "majority" believes in so such and such, thats your majority. You cannot talk as the voice of all scholars. If you cannot honor the oposing view you are POV oriented. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


You are sabotaging the entire Wikipedia concept. I repeat, stop policing every entries involving Turkey. It is the first time I hear from a non-Turk: “You are acusing a nation of a massacre.” Because that actually show that you are in no way in any position to moderate the Armenian genocide entry neither any of the entries involving Turkey in anyway. And I think that if you think a little about it, you will understand why this is not accusing a nation of genocide, more than any other nations being accused of any genocides. You claim having discussed about the issue in the past, I have actually read every single material posted at the talk page, and I have seen no any contribution coming from your part. If I am blind, show me where. The talk page is there for a purposes, it is for discussion, you can not just decide what you consider as “true” and revert articles, this is not how it works... more so, when there has about 200 pages of discussions on the talk pages.
And again, you fail to understand, the neutral point of view make it clear that it is logical that as much places should be left to a version as it is agreed among the Academia. You claim that my majority “claim” is untrue. That's ridiculous, I have read over a hundred work regarding the issue, and many opposing it... have read hundreds of essays, I study the matter for over 5 years. And it is clear that this affirmation is true, even the first works regarding World war I support the theses of planed destruction of the Armenians... One of those I have here on my desk right now: “A Brief History of the Great War” by Carlton J. H. Hayes” published in 1920. I don't see what is wrong as to say “most” when it is most. Right now you live in Turkey, so you're under the impression that it isn't true, but I do live in Canada, have access to an Inter loan program, have visited all the major libraries in my area... I just have to search Armenians in the index, and it is obvious that it is “most.”
And this is not about a scholars point of view, this is what is said about an event, and what most of those scholars say it.
And, I NEVER EDIT, something before actually having read it and justifying my edition, unless it is adding a link. I do not just shoot “POV and propaganda” I visit the talk page and tell it. This is not what you do, you just go on your way and decide to sabotage the Armenian genocide entry, and now that you have learned the non-English entries do not support your position, you want to report that. Mind here that an admin there and another acting as a mod, both were moderating it. You can not sell your positions in everything that concerns Turkey.Fadix 17:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabagh protection[edit]

Yes, when we protect a disputed page we always have to make a choice (even if the choice we make is not to make a conscious choice) about which version to protect. Whichever version we protect, the others may think that it amounts to an endorsement of that version--which it isn't. Wikipedia isn't a sport and administrators aren't referees. We're not more likely to be able to judge which is the best of two competing versions of a page, and usually we're much *less* likely to know which is best. Nevertheless we are usually told by both sides that their version is the one true version.

There are two good documents to look at which might help. The first one is serious: Wikipedia:Protection policy. The second is less serious, a jokey response to all those complaints we get: m:The Wrong Version. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

"My edits are explained in the talk page. If I forgot any expl. point to it in the talk page" Your edits no matter how well you explain them are not neutral. I made several of them neutral. you reverted my edits. What bothers me is not the material you added, but the way you input it. You are bluntly acusing the other party with murder while not giving the other party anyway to respod react or give their views. Wikipedia is not your forum. Sincerely. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My edits ARE neutral, yours aren't. Read Wikipedia neutral point of view, you can not present two versions equally when they are not represented equally in the Academia, my edits clearly present the Turkish government version, and give more place to what is more widely accepted. Look CoolCat, I can present here a list of over a hundred book I have read about the issue, and a good portion of them, revisionist materials... I can present the reviews I have posted, I have enough of this anti-academic policy in Wikipedia, I do not inject myself in discussions I ignore about, so I ask you to do the same. If you have any problem with any of the points I raised brought them in the talk page, and not just shou8t they are not neutral.
Fact, most Academics support my position, and even the moderate work: “Is the Holocaust Unique.” Why don't you present a list of books you have read about the topic? Why don't you present reviews of works? People like you are killing Wikiepdia by introducing national biases. And I can present here Turks who will affirm that your edits are not Neutral even though they may disagree with me. You can not present equally what the international community accept as fact, and the majority of Academics with what is supported by Turkey... if you do that, you hijack the article.Fadix 16:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I suggest you both read this. Take it as a polite warning about the consequences of the path you are treading by insisting that your version is more neutral than all the others: m:MPOV.

I know it's going to be hard for you both to agree a version of Armenian Genocide, if only because it *is* a very controversial issue bound up with national identity and a very turbulent period of history for that region. I think, Fadix, that your idea of going to mediation is a good step forward, and I urge noth you and Coolcat to give it an honest try. Don't get caught in the trap that Tabib and Rovoam have gotten into, where eventually (surprisingly quickly, actually) the issue goes before Arbcom and you could both stand to be penalised for failing to cooperate in the spirit of openness. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks Tony, in my opinion, you're the most neutral I have encountered in the English Wikipedia. Who are mediators, and how are they selected?
Now you have chosen a mediator? And yet never tell me... -_- --Cool Cat My Talk 00:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But I warned you that I will be asking for a mediation today, what did you think that I was lying? He(Jwrosenzweig) asked me to chose a mediator, I have read his page, and since he has a Bachelor in history I have chosen him, if you don't like him, we can compromise for another one, but I thought that a gratuate in history was the best choice.Fadix 00:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

I am very happy that you consider my edits to be neutral. :-) In my opinion, at least the lead section of the article is now quite good, and lay out the straight facts, without actually supporting/rejecting any of the two sides of this issue. Stereotek 17:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problematic with this subject is that it is very difficult to not support one side against the other. There is a clear disproportion between the two positions. And more, how do we handle the special organization? The subject has not been covered by any revisionists. Their claim is that there was no genocide and that Armenians were removed for treachery, but they never raise the question of the special organization, or such things. I don't know if you understand what I mean. What I mean is that some of those key elements are not covered by the other side, which means there is no "other" interpretations for them. So, the reader will obviously think that the article is not neutral. There are many such issues attached with the Armenian cases that I will be covering, and I really don't know how they can be neutralized. Example, the Ottoman barred relief by pretext that nothing is wished to be done that could prolong their lives...
Another example, the Ottoman allies position during the war, if I present it, the reader will ultimatly think that this is not a controversial subject, and rightfully so. If I refer to the fact that it is the second most studied genocide, they will think that the article is supporting the theses of genocide. If I point out the fact that Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term genocide included the Jewish and Armenian cases not only as cases of genocide, but as well as part of the definition, it will clearly indicate a genocide.
How am I to handle this? For me it is like trying to propose equaly the theses that Earth is flat, and the theses that Earth is spherical... if I were to cover such a subject, if I present both cases, and their strong arguments, obviously one side will have the strongest arguments against the other and the subject won't appear neutral. Fadix 18:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you post accusations of bias on my talk page (regardless of who it is about) please provide links to the proof. The talk page of the article is far too long to follow all the time, and I can't really find the actual edits in the history either. Also, what you posted is primarily aimed at Cool Cat and should therefore be at his talk page. If you want me to be aware of your comment, a small note is more than enough. Mgm|(talk) 22:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Right now, the only thing I am after is that I want a mediator, I just hope that after that he doesn't still claim biases. You want links, but the problem is not just one example, biases is all over the place, I cover this in the talk page of the Armenian Genocide entry, and have seen many other biases introduced by him in other entries involving Turkey. He delete informations to mislead the reader, if you go at the history, just follow the other member that now edit, and compare them with Coolcat edits to see what he does. Fadix 23:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am living in the US, you make asumptions regarding me and I dont like that. Also in wikipedia do not TALK to me on someone elses talk page thats like talkig to me from someone elses phone instead of mine. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for that then, from your words you claimed living in Turkey. Fadix 17:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Fadix. But could you be a little less wordy and provide links to prove the things you say. I can't keep track of everyone's edits. Mgm|(talk) 08:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

ORDER[edit]

YOU ARE ORDERED THAT ALL YOUR EDITS MUST BE APPROVED BY COOLCAT. YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM NOW ON TO EDIT ANYTHING ON THIS SITE. YOU ARE COMMANDED. IF YOU BREAK THIS RULE, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED. PUNISHMENT WILL BE SEVERE AND SLOW. THIS ORDER IS FROM THE HIGHEST LEVEL. YOU ARE COMMANDED

Can an Admin confirm this message above? If not, shall I suppose that it is just cheap tricks?
It's in all caps and no one signed it, and it's an anon edit in the history. I think it's safe to ignore it. I'll try to find out who posted it. Mgm|(talk) 08:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
User posted 67.67.114.200 Anonaymous, unlikely to be an admin, IP trace ends at St.Louis, I never equiested such a thing, nor am I remotely involoved.
My surveys were only me investiogating if I were over reacting, Survey suggested I was. It was a mesure for me to check myself.
I'll be blacklisting the IP and gathering data. That is not how we do things on wikipedia anyways.
I dont refer to cheap tricks. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does it really matter who wrote the above? Is it a violation of any of Wikipedias policies, and is it really worth wasting a developers time with? I think it might very well be more important, to know who is behind the anonymous ip address that just vandalized the Armenian Genocide article: [1] Stereotek 15:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I serriously think you should report me to the vandalism people. I hyjack articles by correcting spelling.

Torque's attacks on you at Talk:Armenian Genocide[edit]

Hi, I found a personal attack on Torque and deleted it, then tonight I looked at what he had written and of course a lot of that was a very personal attack on you, so I went through and deleted the most personal stuff. The stuff I left in, don't assume it's my opinion, I was just trying to separate his statements about Armenians in general (which are clearly racist and, after consulting with others, I may remove totally) from his personal attacks on you (which are utterly not permitted). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I have not problem you delete any personal attacks made by me against other persons, as long as you moderate equaly from both side, and you seem to do just that. Unfortunitly for the comming days, I will be away(work)... but I can now know that there is someone actualy doing some editing job. Regards. 24.202.58.17 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide entry vandalism[edit]

If you think what someone is doing is vandalism, report it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, but first check at Wikipedia:Vandalism to make sure what you're seeing is vandalism and not edits you disagree with (there is a difference).

If you think a user's behavior is beyond the pale, you can take it to dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for details on how to do this. Any user whose behavior is unacceptable will be made to stop, one way or another.

However I think you should be wary of making threats of the kind you made on my talk page. This kind of behavior in itself is close to the kind of behavior that could get you banned. For good. Please try to remain civil, no matter what the provocation. We value the content of our encyclopedia and the happiness of those who work hard to produce it--you included. Please trust us to ensure that nobody is permitted to destroy either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may wait longer than you think for the administration to act. Revering spelling corrections and declaring vandalims is hardly good manners. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) I already told you that I am using my default template regarding Armenian Genocide article and that I was not suggestion I were a mediator. If you are not going to bother read other peoples arguments what are you trying to achieve? And do NOT edit my template. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are NOT only spelling corrections, and you know it... you are trying to relativize... this is called vendalism. From the begining you have tried to sabotate the entry, have admitted not knowing about the topic, and regardless you make changes that have to do with "knowledge" rather than neutralization. And you have even questioned the person that was acting like a moderator... while you jump on when someone question your participating in every entires related with Turkey. You are vandalising articles, you've been colloring them with your POVs, and now you have decided to even get involved with the Karabagh entry. Besides, you have suggested yourself as a mediator, you are not on the list of mediators, you have no power to mediate boards. On what the administrators of Wikipedia are sleeping on? I have requested a mediator. Fadix 02:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know I'll make this easy for you. Why dont you just accept my suggestion and think of other words to describe he camps. Lets see what we come up with. Something that means both a relocation camp and a concentration camp. Just think it as a word game. We dont have to put the word in the article. Lets jsut work together for a start. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Were people not concentrated there by force? Was it not called a concentration camp? How do you expect me to believe you are sincere, when you want an equivalent as asking me to find an alternative for the word car to name a car? Fadix 04:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mediation spam[edit]

I thought I'd bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User:Coolcat/mediat. — Davenbelle 06:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism[edit]

Please stop accusing people of vandalism when it's really a content dispute. That is an unacceptable personal attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not accuse people of vandalism, but Coolcat of vandalism. I call vandalism, when someone purpously delete informations from an entry to mislead the reader... deletion of important informations. Coolcat hasn't drop his request to "present two positions as equaly valid" and his 50-50. This is against Wikipedia NPOV... and he still repeat it, when in the same time claiming to start a fresh talk. Until he dosen't drop this request that is POV, and he still continue in his quest to edit the article to fit that scheme, I will call vandalism by its name, and I see nothing in any Wikipedia rules, that forbit me to call vandalism, such a misbehavour. This is not about the content, this is about Coolcat that want to delete important informations. Fadix 16:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want to see real personal attacks, visit Coolcat member page, and see for what he is using it, not only on top, but as well his foodchain. I think this is clearly against Wikipedia policy. Fadix 16:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Coolcats personal page[edit]

No, I am very sure that it is against Wikipedias policies to have such accusations and insults against named Wikipedians on the userpage, and it would proberly be safe to remove it. However, I think that we should just leave it as it is. If Coolcat wants to advertise with all the Wikipedians that he annoy with his low quality/POV edits, then let him! It only hurts himself. Coolcat's attempt to be a 'mediator' in the Armenian Genocide article is of course plain ridicules. He is a part of the conflict, and as you mentioned not on the list of mediators. His template was apparently deleted earlier today. Anyway, please continue your great work on the Armenian Genocide article, and remember never to give away any excuses by making ANY personal comments. When Torque and Coolcat attack you, then don't respond to it. Just ask them not to use personal attacks against you. That way, they only hurt themself. Anyway, I'll continue to watch Coolcat's edits and confront any POV edits that he make. Stereotek 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is what I think of you and notes to self, and what I think you are. I will not be intimidated by your conquest. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is childish a teen "personal Journal" mentality. It is an attack against members, openly on a page that is not there for discussion. It is disrespectable. Fadix 20:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought you might want to know that is no longer the case, my apologies I wasnt thinking clearly at the time. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confesion[edit]

I apologise for any insults or personal attacks I may have refered to, I expect the same, know that I have my sincere apologies. I have to admit I am not the best candidate dealing with newbies, and once you are also a veteran you will understand. :)

We can make a productive enviorment for both of us if we work together. I have a need to clarify a few things:

  • I do not want any article to be one sided. I want them to be factual instead. Armenian Genocide for exapmle has a lot of room for debate, while Gravity does not. I am not here to disprove the genocide.
  • I urge you to folow Wikipedia:Wikiquette while discussing.
  • While Torque was not being a perfect follower of Wikiquette with his discussion with you, you weren't any better. I want to keep it to that.
  • I understand some of my comments regarding the factuality of some genocide related material as unacceptable, I urge you to read throughly.
  • One thing you have to realise is that a one sided article will probably vandalised rather quickly by people with misguided energy.

I believe in Hate brings Hate thats why I am trying very hard to "forget" so please do not refer to previous "things"

The genocide issue in a nutshell[edit]

  • I know very little regarding the topic to present the views of the Anti-genocide side. All my suggestions were based on web sites. While I am not claiming they were factual, I am pointing out an oposing view exists.
  • You may have been affected by pro genocide propoganda more than you think. We should base the article promarily on what both parties of the pro-anti genocide sides. Material like most scholars, most academia in the lead statement conflicts with this.
  • You should not have a need to create an aurora that genocide is widely accepted before the article starts
  • You should start from a 50/50 aproach and then make your case.
  • You claim your material is factual, which we are discussing, asuming it is you do not need a biased lead statement, the reader should deremine what he believes to be the case and where he/she stands. The user does not have to pick a side either.
  • Please do not insist on things that afects article wide, we can determine that later. The article may end up 50/50 or 60/40 or any ratio. Lets discuss our way to a concensus.
  • I prefer you do not rever any edits I make. Instead comment out the part you dont like. this is how you do it

<nowkik></nowiki>

By using the tag you will remove the material from the article but it will be there for anyone who edits the page. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • You did not realise this initialy I believe.
  • You should not revert things on wikipedia unless you have to. Reverting pov will only cause someone else to revert it back. And lead to a "foolish" and unproductive revert war. I want to evade that.
  • I believe you sincerely want to prove the genocide, which is fine, however you should not be close minded. Your last measage on my talk page suggest you are not close minded. I want to believe that, dont prove me wrong.
  • We both are santient beings we can discuss things.
  • I recomend we use the color format I introduced.

Do you see my reasoning? I could not have see yours before my buddy Tony pointed me things out.

  • After we finalise the article we can edit rest of wikipedia refering to this event.

--Cool Cat My Talk 05:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, as we can see, you are not ready for debate but you try to dictate things that have nothing to do with neutrality but all to do with POV. I told you, the Turkish government version should be presented, but it should be indicated who says what, it is a take or leave. I repeat and repeat, you CAN NOT hide who says what. You can not take priests positions in a scientific article and present it with scientists position, without saying who says what. The lead of the article should say important things, and that most Western Academics support one theses against another is VERY IMPORTANT, and should be left there. There is nothing such as 50-50 goal, and if it end up like that, it should be left as that. Both parties best arguments and their critics should be presented, I have no problem with that, as much space as it is given in the Academia, I have mno problem with that, but don't expect me to delete arguments because one sides arguments are stronger, obviously there is one sides argument that is stronger, that's why most academics take that position against the other. I can't help it, this has nothing to do with "proving" the genocide. This has everything to do with presenting important points regarding an issue. You still havn't droped your "Two positions as equaly valid." I told you countless numbers of times, that until you don't drop that anti-Wikipedian policy, there is no way to discuss with you about the issue.
And yes! I see your reasoning, your reasoning is to dissolve the genocide entry. Your reasoning is to dissolve strong arguments from one side to make it appear as the entry present two equivalent and equal proposition. Another thing Mr. Coolcat, yesterday I have seen you finding other members and continuing your petitioning, that is a disgusting behavor that you still continue, you've been alleterting now I believe 10 or close to 10 members. Fadix 16:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I pulled back all my requests (that I remeber). I was asking them help on how to manage you, I never requested a block or anything, I asked them how to handle you by porviding them how you "acted", I am also a newbie in handling newbies, I asked for how they did it. The more hsotile you get with me the more hostile I get with you. You want to promote facts regarding to the genocide, that is fine. You have to word it in the most powerfull and politicaly correct way. I am not dictating anything, I am suggesting things you can do what the heck you want. If you cant agree on anything with me you cant achieve anything either. Work woth me not against me.
Sugeestions:
  • Drop the accusations such as "to dissolve the genocide entry", If I wanted that there would be an overwhelming Turkish side, I can get multiple IP's on campus and only a selective group of them can find out. You must understand that technology is my field, I appear as one person, I could have posed as 10 or 20 or more to overwhelm you off the discussion.
  • Refer to me as Coolcat, drop the Mr. I do not like formal Mr. to be used with my nick
  • Dont tell me I am not ready to discuss, this isnt the first contraverisal topic I discussed, I clearly know the methods to be used, I can practice them when I am accused of hidden agendas and so fourth. I am trying to expose you to the proper methods which you see as me trying to dictate how article will be edited. I gave you numerous examples how we can discuss without drowning each other.
  • Discuss anything regarding the article in the article talk, no where else, If I apear inactive for more than a day notify me on my talk page, I am busy with a lot of articles. Most notabley NATO ranks, I pride that one. As well as causal vandalist whatch, and hunt for stubs.
  • Two sides are equaliy valid when you are forexample defining the Organisation "Teşkilát-ı Mahsusa" the definition should accompany both sides views. Both sides agree criminals were involved, both sides do not agree that the organisation existed to kill armenians. I am not saying it will be presented 50-50. I am saying there is no ration we will establish. My objective is not to purge science fact, my objective is to hide science fiction created by genocide. If you start researching genocide by believeing in it you results will not be as accurate as you want them to be. Dont interperete meanings, I an not trying to acuse you, I am suggesting bear with me lets hear your case. You wont be able to "prove" genocide, you wont be able to present it as a fact, article however may end up supporting your case, or maybe declining it at certain points. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're ignored. Fadix 01:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)